The new Diocese of TEC in South Carolina's press Release Today
Posted in
* Anglican - Episcopal,
* Christian Life / Church Life,
* Culture-Watch,
* South Carolina,
Episcopal Church (TEC),
Ethics / Moral Theology,
Law & Legal Issues,
Parish Ministry,
Presiding Bishop,
Stewardship,
TEC Conflicts,
TEC Conflicts: South Carolina,
Theology
It says, “…offering to let 35 parishes keep their church properties.”
Maybe I’m being dense, but don’t the parishes already own their church property via the quitclaim deeds?
I’m still trying to get my head around the idea that TECSC could make an offer that was not authorized by TEC (if this one had been, it would have been signed by someone from the national church).
Can’t imagine the bar association or the courts will view this sort of conduct in a positive light.
Prayers for the Diocese and Bishop Lawrence. Good to see them sticking together against this all to obvious strategy to divide and conquer.
Ralph, #1, yes, I think the parishes do already own their property, and so do the parishes which left the Diocese and affiliated with TEC. How very peculiar this is: They offer to “give” parishes what they already own in exchange for what the individual parishes don’t have to give, that is, the diocesan properties.
Ralph. Yes, you are correct.
The quit claim deeds are only one piece of evidence that were scrutinzed by Judge Goodstein and she ruled (not surprisingly) that the parishes owned their property. SO to “relinquish all claims” to the properties of the 35 parishes is simply admitting that their ploy to get these properties ain’t working. Perhaps some lawyer talked to Tisdale and finally made it clear they were not going to win these properties in the litigation. Also, it makes them seem to be *generous* in giving up all claims to the millions that these properties represent. Never mind that TEC never owned or had any sort of claim on these properties under SC law!
Yet TECSC claims to still have the rights to the name, and all intellectual and real property of the diocese. Someone forgot to remind Tisdale that the very thing that brought this injunction and then litigation was the fact they had used the name of the diocese in appropriately in newspaper ads back in the fall of 2012. SO why did he think that asking for the name and all intellectual property and all diocesan real estate including the very valuable piece of property that is St. Christopher Camp and Conference Center on Sea Brook Island (near Kiawah and Hilton Head for those not familiar with the location) would somehow be acceptable to the parishes?
You can bet this “proposed settlement” is all about the money. Notice they included financial assets in their claims! As many have said- Follow the money!
TJ, I can’t explain that but you are right. No one from Goodwin Procter was involved in proposing this settlement. It has been revealed via Canon Lewis that TEC was asked for a valid offer soon after the offer was made known to the diocese and what it would take for a valid offer to be made. So far, nothing has been returned to the diocese. Just another reason we can be sure that this was never a actual settlement offer but a tactic to disrupt preparations for a brief that needed to be submitted.
Another commenter elsewhere made the excellent point that TEC is a “dream client” for Goodwin Procter. Indeed! Why would they agree to a “proposed settlement” that would lose them considerable dollars from TEC by settling the matter instead of pursuing the litigation? It seems pretty clear now that TEC and Goodwin Procter weren’t really involved in making this “offer”. Even though claims have been made by someone on their standing committee that the offer was made with the permission of the PB, it is clear that the law firm of Goodwin Procter was never involved with this settlement. One reason why this offer was unanimously rejected by the parishes involved. There are other reason as well which Canon Lewis mentions in his articles.
Katherine, it is weird. TEC relinquishes all claims to the properties they never owned and yet they want the property that as you rightly noted the parishes can’t give because it is not theirs to give. It belongs to the diocese. At the very least, it should have been presented before the diocesan convention for that permission. Even so, the answer would have been the same- NO!
One wonders if this “offer” was the result of some conversation over drinks somewhere. If so, the liquor must have clouded their memory and judgement. Truly nonsensical and spurious!